Comments on: “Apparently They Didn’t Have Enough Faith”

By: Toba122

Toba122 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:10:30 +0000

Thats creepy.

“The user submit feature pays off! What would be an otherwise un-noticed story by Gasmonso, get’s turned into a great topic for discussion”
I saw Gasmonso’s name in some other topic. That debate made me get back to searching for the truth. I was using my crown chakra and my third eye again! Without even knowing!

By: Kurt

Kurt — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:36:39 +0000

Sid –
That’s why I’d do terrible at award shows. I always forget to name everyone, and they feel left out. Sorry, Jagganath and anyone else I forgot to mention! :)

By: sidfaiwu

sidfaiwu — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:31:21 +0000

Thanks Kurt. The respect is mutual. I’m glad you de-lurked. I certainly wouldn’t leave jagannath out of your list. His knowledge of the Bible (both it content and history) is indispensable.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:02:14 +0000

Hyrocket –
To whom was your comment directed? And “pussy cat?” Seriously? :)

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:49:51 +0000

Oh, and might I say that I find you to be one of the most cogent and well-read posters on this site . . . it’s always a pleasure to read your posts and interact with you; between you, Alcari, Irish, and the great Gasmonso lies a large amount of the reason I de-lurked and joined in the fun . . . not to disparage any other posters on the site, including muslim boy (whom I do not agree with per se, but respect and value as one of the “religious voices of moderation and concscience” on this kooky little corner of the web).

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:21:46 +0000

Sid–
Yes, and a great deal more than has actually been done. One of the reasons I want to live as long as I possibly can (with a healthy mind and body, of course; drooling idiocy in an adjustable bed while being spoon-fed rancid jello is a personal nightmare of mine): I have always wanted to see what’s around the corner. With another 100 years of psychological research under our belts, we might actually begin to understand the complexities of human behavior. Got to find my shades; the future looks bright. ;)

By: sidfaiwu

sidfaiwu — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:07:58 +0000

we might find somehting at some point which would be an exception to the general proposition, but that would take more information than we currently have on the subject; I’m afraid I’m all out of grant money at the moment

That’s funny, but also true. Since are disagreement has come down to the extent to which ideas can impact evolution, we really won’t be able to reach a conclusion without some research.

By: hyrocket

hyrocket — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:09:02 +0000

You sound like pussy cat, lolzzz
“Of course, resulting to force is almost always wrong.”

By: Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:01:10 +0000

Sid–
I certainly buy your proposition about the likelihood of beliefs changing more quickly than genes, and on environmental factors outside of behavior playing a more important role in evolution, on a general level at least (we might find somehting at some point which would be an exception to the general proposition, but that would take more information than we currently have on the subject; I’m afraid I’m all out of grant money at the moment).
The reason I remember that everyone in Carthage was killed is because when my High School Latin teacher (don’t ask me to identify the tense of any verbs, it’s been 22 years since I last did that trick) said that, a kid in the class brought up the very point you do. My teacher said, “No, I mean everyone. Men, women, children, Greek and Egyptian merchants visiting the city, even Archimedes the great inventor were all put to the sword, the city razed, the crops burned, and the fields sown with salt.” We were suitably in awe of such a thing. The Romans *really* hated the Cartheginians (one Roman senator finished every speech he made to the senate — no matter what it was about — with the phrase “Carthage must be destroyed”).
And you’ve obviously done your homework on behavioral psychology, but my point was precisely that behaviors which might seem foolish when seen from outside can appear perfectly rational from within, because our brains operate much more on a level of anecdotal thinking than we like to “believe” (yeah, I know, I’m being snarky . . . sorry about that). Partly because of that, most societies have “chosen for” behaviors which include obeying authority figures . . . which, as we can see from the story we’re commenting on, can be a very bad thing when the authority figure is full of crap. And furthermore, we have an adaptability which is truly astounding, re-shuffling instinctual adaptations to meet new challenges with a fairly decent success rate (after all, we are still here) . . . which, as we can see from the story we’re commenting on, isn’t up to 100% quite yet.
But in many ways, your example is how the behavior/belief net gets started: we do the behavior, the belief comes after, then the belief is used to influence future behavior in a positive feedback loop (The basic fight/flight reaction comes to mind: warrior cultures praise one and condemn the other, even though they’re really the same thing). And, again, we’re still learning about such things (there are some replication issues going on with many recent psychological experiments that the mainstream media aren’t reporting . . . as usual), and we’re not sure if any new instincts/genotypes/beneficial mutations/etc. have come along in the last 60,000 years or not . . . but time will tell.

By: sidfaiwu

sidfaiwu — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:21:09 +0000

Hello Kurt, That was a good response. You've made some great points. I would have to agree that some ideas have a non-zero relation ship with some genes. But, as you pointed out, we really don't know which ideas have a genetic component nor do we know the extent to which each has such a basis. "The presents of gene X gives a y% probability that the individual will acquire belief z." I'll adapt my position and state the y is extremely small for almost all beliefs. My rational remains the same: genetic change happens too slowly in comparison to changing ideas. So I would now say that I agree that ideas/beliefs could play a small roll in evolution, but it is an insignificant one compared to environmental factors. I have a few thoughts, somewhat tangential, on other parts of your comment.

The Romans killed everyone in Carthage.

Did they really? They didn't take any of the women as sex slaves? I truly don't know but I know its common for a vanquisher to take sex slaves which would certainly preserve the genes of the vanquished.

Evolutionary Psychology has fairly well demonstrated a number of behaviors that are genetically linked.

Behaviors, certainly. Beliefs though? Behavior psychology has demonstrated that many of our beliefs and thoughts about a behavior are made up after the behavior takes place. We rationalize our behavior more often then we rationally choose our behavior. Since distinct sets of beliefs can be used to justify the same behavior, I'd argue that the behavior is selected for or against, not the rationalization.